commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>
Subject Re: [VFS] next release
Date Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:07:21 GMT
I'm much less concerned with the package name than I am that it appear to be part of the VFS
subproject.  By necessity, it won't be binary compatible - and presumably users won't interact
with the commons vfs code directly anyway.

Ralph

On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> I am thinking of a different package name, not just version for VFS on Java
> 7 because we might want to release more VFS2-based versions that do break
> binary compatibility.
> 
> We can retain the VFS name and brand for the project, but I'd prefer
> o.a.c.vfs<n> to be for VFS2 based work and to create o.a.c.filesystem (or
> fs) for Java 7 FileSystem-based work.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5 December 2011 22:45, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Gary,
>>> 
>>> Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi All:
>>>> 
>>>> I've made several improvements to VFS over the last couple of months
>> which
>>>> feels ready for a release soon.
>>>> 
>>>> One important internal change is that the builds runs almost all unit
>>>> tests
>>>> :)
>>> 
>>> I saw your efforts and this is really a great improvement! Thanks!
>>> 
>>>> I've not found an easy way to embed a WebDAV server in the tests like
>>>> JackRabbit, which would be nice to do.
>>> 
>>> Definitely :)
>>> 
>>>> I know Ralph just mentioned thoughts of a VFS3 on top of Java 7, which
>> is
>>>> great news indeed. This feels like it needs a new name instead of a
>>>> version change though because the change is so radical (and nice.)
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> I'd keep the name, it's a brand here and if we name it VFS3 and document
>>> that it is based on Java 7 technology, so why change it?
>> 
>> The current release targets Java 1.5 and uses the package name vfs2;
>> the name was changed from o.a.c.vfs because 2.x is not binary
>> compatible with 1.x.
>> 
>> If there is to be any development of VFS 2.x on Java 1.5 or Java 1.6
>> that requires breaking binary compatibility again (which is not
>> impossible), this could cause a clash with the package name for the
>> new component VFS3.
>> 
>> Ideally there should be a different package name prefix for each the
>> two components; failing that, at least they must use different numeric
>> suffix ranges.
>> Otherwise users may not be able to upgrade to Java 7 cleanly.
>> 
>> Maven ids also need to be distinct, but that is less of an issue (for
>> once).
>> 
>>> - Jörg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message